Template talk:Category TOC/Archive 1

Comments
If anyone has any brilliant ideas how to get rid of the external references to get a category TOC, please do it! Otherwise, we can wait for a software enhancement and use this. For an example of its use, see Category:Albums by artist
 * Samuel Wantman 00:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very clever - I had previously done this in long hand at Category:British MPs and have used a variant at Template:CatAZ --Henrygb 22:21, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I added class="plainlinks" to the table to remove the external link indicators. In IE6 at least, this still leaves a large unclosable space between letters (where the indicators would otherwise be), but it's still tidier than 28 arrow-boxes.  Note that although I applied the class to the entire table, it can also be applied to individual links by using http://somelink.com/  .  &mdash; Catherine\talk 12:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you add  to your monobook.css file, the padding is gone.

Format/layout
Bkonrad has twice reverted me. I've made some technical and visual improvements to the template in this version. The single-line version is too wide (and ugly) and is coded incorrectly. I invite anyone whose preference lies in my more compact version to revert to it. -- Netoholic @ 20:49, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
 * In what way is three lines "more compact" than two lines? That vertical space at the top of the page is more valuable than horizontal space. And UGLY, is rather subjective. If you or someone else wants to restore whatever might be coded incorrectly, that's no problem. I don't even care about the tinted background. But no multi-line TOC please. older ≠ wiser 21:09, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've made a further set of changes to make this look much more like a normal TOC and further reduce the wasted space. See this change. -- Netoholic @ 23:19, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Let's stop using this for a while
I think you guys stumbled upon a great idea that is much better handled as a MediaWiki feature request, rather than a template. Templates are actually pretty inefficient in what they do. I've submitted an enhancement request to get automatically generated "table of contents"-like feature put into the base software. I'd hate to see us make a lot of extra work for ourselves. -- Netoholic @ 21:25, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for putting in the request; it's an excellent idea. However, with all due respect to you and our overworked developers, we don't know how long it will take to get such a feature implemented.  In the meantime, there are many categories that are very difficult to delve into -- very frustrating when you have an article to place and are trying to find the right subcategory of a large category -- this seems particularly important in those large "dumping-ground" categories, btw.  It's a useful interim solution, and the work of removing this template will not be so difficult (once a solution is offered by a developer) -- that's what "what links here" is all about.  I'll do it myself, so don't trouble yourself about the extra work.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 23:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stop using it? Have you seen how many pages are using this since this was created two days ago?  There was a real need, and the need for navigating categories has been affecting the discussion on how categories work (and as I see it, creating sub-categoy zealots).  Certainly this should be in the software, but until then it isn't harming anything, and is helping a great deal. -- Samuel Wantman 02:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely understand and agree that there is a need for a solution. Let's just not go gung-ho and put this template in hundreds of categories.  We've gone for quite a while without it, we can wait a little while and do it right. -- Netoholic @ 03:57, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Edit War
I haven't been part of this edit war, but I'm hoping I can help end it. I don't think this is a big deal, and I've read all the edit comments. There really isn't a big difference between the two versions; both work, both look good. But, I tried re-sizing my browser window to different sizes using both versions and I think there is an advantage to the one-line version when the window is narrow. I'm hoping that everyone will try both versions and if there are still disagreements, to try and work it out on this talk page first. -- Samuel Wantman 06:42, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been trying to discuss it on the talk page, but I'll tell you it's not going well. I've made further improvements (check my last version) to it which make it look more standard, and less bloated, than the single line version.  I don't understand the appeal of it.  Have you tried viewing it at smaller resolutions?  I have a feeling Bkonrad must have a large monitor, but for those that do not or have visual problems, making this a more compact layout is ideal.  Why can't it look like the regular TOCs? -- Netoholic @ 23:28, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
 * FYI, I use a 15" monitor at 1024x768 on a laptop, so I don't think that qualifies as "large". Despite whatever value you ascribe to "compactness", I think it looks bad. There is simply no need to have a double row. As for looking "like the regular TOCs", what are you talking about? Template:CompactTOC, Template:CompactTOC2, Template:CompactTOC3, and Template:CompactTOC4 (of which you are the last editor for each) all have the alpha or alphanumeric entries on a single line. So yes, I would be happy if you would leave this as a single line so that it does look like the other TOC templates.  older &ne; wiser]] 01:48, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you please drop the sarcasm?  As has been noted on this page, even though we're using "plainlinks", there is still extra space on this template, where the external link arrow would normally be.  The other CompactTOCs do not have to deal with that issue, so are... compact.  I say "look like other TOCs" as in having a small overall width, of no more than 50% of the screen real estate.    This is desireable because a great deal of people view at 800x600.  -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I still don't know what you're talking about. It looks fine at 800x600. Have there been any complaints (aside from you, I mean)? Are there some interface guidelines around that I'm not aware of?  older &ne; wiser]] 02:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks ok on my screen at 800 x 600 as well, Net, and if I reduce the window size it just wraps neatly to form....well, a double row. So I don't see the disadvantage of it taking up more horizontal space.  Why is the 50% width important to you?  The white space is not going to be used for something else, and vertical real estate is at a premium on these pages.  The forcing of a double row just pushes the content of the page (the subcategories and articles) down that much farther, for those who are not actively using the TOC.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

single line version
Netoholics last version at 19:34, 10 Feb 2005 (smaller single line version) is OK except that it does not wrap. On my screen that means I have to scroll to see the whole thing. It should wrap. Other than that, I have no problems with it. I'd do it myself, but I no longer understand how it works. -- Samuel Wantman 04:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That was intentional. The line breaks are too unpredictable on different browsers, and this is the only way to make it as slim as possible. -- Netoholic @ 04:43, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * Is it that you don't like the way that browsers auto-wrap? Yes, it sometimes means that you get A through S on the top line and T-Z below, and that's uneven....but not such a terrible inconvenience.  Please explain your reasoning.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 04:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It may have been your intention, but it makes it hard to use. I don't think you should ever have to do a horizontal scroll to read a page on Wikipedia.  If this is not a policy, it should be!  Pages sometimes look a little funny when things wrap.  Happens all the time.  Why is this a problem?  Making a page less useful, that IS a problem! -- Samuel Wantman 05:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On category pages (especially these large ones we're using this one), there are three columns of information. If you adjust the width of your browser window to the point at which you get the scroll bar, then it is already too small for the category columns to display nicely. -- Netoholic @ 15:21, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * Netoholics version at 19:34, 10 Feb 2005 (smaller single line version) is just awful. It is nearly unusable as there is absolutely no separation between the letters.   older &ne; wiser]] 13:20, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * None? In my browser (without any special CSS settings) there is a at least an em-space between each letter. Noone else has complained about the spacing being too small, so it must be your settings. -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * No, none. I am using unmodified Monobook. Your last version is unusable as is. And you might want to read the other comments here a little more carefully -- it makes it hard to use looks lik a complaint to me.  older &ne; wiser]] 15:45, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...which is why I said "Noone else has complained about the spacing being too small". Please provide a screenshot, since I am using the same skin unmodified and there is a good amount of space. -- Netoholic @ 16:08, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

[Here] is a screenshot. older &ne; wiser]] 16:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is mine showing the same revision. You must have some setting different.  Try logging out and viewing my last version of the template. -- Netoholic @ 18:18, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I think the difference is between IE and Firefox. I just checked this on my wife's computer (who rarely edits and only occasionally uses Wikipedia). I first cleared the cache and then accessed Wikipedia without logging in. It looks exactly the same as on my computer. However, we both use Firefox. I decided to check how it looks in IE, and your version looks like the image you uploaded (and to be honest, the other version in IE looks pretty bad).  older &ne; wiser]] 18:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * And you went and assumed bad faith on my part during this whole thing... Anyway, according to the latest stats I could find, a solid majority of visitors view using IE.  We need to make this work on that browser.  Looking the old versions over in both browsers, I think a compromise should be made on this revision, until we can solve the difference in the way IE and Firefox display "plainlinks". -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I never assumed bad faith on your part--maybe bit of arrogance. :> But considering that the appearance in IE of the spaced single-line version is dramatically worse in IE than the stacked version in FF, that version is the best compromise for now.  older &ne; wiser]] 19:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with template on image categories
The template is not working right with Category:Fair use screenshots. Anybody understand why? -- Samuel Wantman 06:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything in the category is an image, which means that everything starts with "I". -Aranel (" Sarah ") 23:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes that is true, but look at Category:Album covers These are all images also, yet the TOC works. What is the difference? -- Samuel Wantman 04:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh -- that is strange! Sometimes it displays a few of the requested items (D, or G) before starting with the punctuation and numbers and then A.  Requesting "Q" gets you items starting with S.  I don't see any rhyme or reason to it... Might it have to do with the fact there are non-image pages in the category too?  Didn't look exhaustively in Album covers, but it seems unlikely it wouldn't have some non-image pages as well (templates, talk, etc.).  Bizarre.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * it's a relatively simple fix. Instead of having the from argument be "F", it should be "Image:F". I tried this and it works fine. ~ Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:08, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made a fixed version Template:CategoryNamedTOC. It simply takes a namespace as it's only argument and produces the appropriate link. See Category:Mario media for it in use. Dread Lord C y b e r S k u l l ✎☠ 11:14, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
 * Nice fix. Is there a way to combine this new template with CategoryTOC?  The problem is that some categories have subdirectories, articles AND images.  Also, I don't think the named category needs to be displayed, it is redundant. So I'm hoping that we can get this one fixed and not have to use the new one.  Is it possible? -- Samuel Wantman 16:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary of both versions
I've read through all the comments, and looked at all the revisions. We have two versions: so we almost have consensus. If Netoholic has concerns that are strong enough to make him block consensus, it is his duty to convince the rest of us that he is right. As of now that has not happened. I invite him to state his case. He needs to: Once he does this, we can either find a compromise that addresses everyones concerns, or decide TOGETHER, on this talk page, which version to keep. But until Netoholic does so, I will join with Bkonrad in reverting his changes. (SamuelWantman) -- 20:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Netoholic's, which is supported by Netoholic
 * CatherineMunro's, which is supported by CatherineMunro, Bkonrad (older≠wiser), and myself
 * Clearly state why his version is superior, and how it addresses OUR concerns.
 * Convince us that CatherineMunro's version has serious problems.
 * That's a pretty rude thing to say, considering. I assume you also use Firefox?  Go back using IE and look at what I was trying to acheive. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I use IE. I'm trying to understand what your concerns are.  Everyone says "looks better", "looks worse", that doesn't explain things.  My concern is that you see the entire alphabet without having to do a horizontal scroll.  Your version doesn't do that.  If your version wrapped the text to the width of the browser I would not object to it. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion above. Seems there are differences in how browsers display these. And I can't resist taking a cheap shot at Microsoft - all of these look much worse in IE than in Firefox.  older &ne; wiser]] 20:14, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like IE may actually be handling this correctly, but that the main CSS sheets have a bug in them. IE is "doing what it's told", so to speak. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Agreed?
Where and when was the three line version agreed to on this talk page? It looks to me like there is a preference for a one or two line version. I liked user:netoholic's previous one line version, except for its lack of text wrapping in narrow windows. I don't see an advantage to this three line version (except that it wraps). If you have a two line version (title on top, then the alphabet) which wraps and you browser has a narrow window you end up with this current version. But, if you have a wide screen, the one or two line version is a more efficient use of screen real estate. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if the lines are broken inconsistantly on narrow windows. I'd vote vote for a two line version, centered, that wraps. -- Samuel Wantman 11:34, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Netoholic and I agreed. Netoholic's last one-line version was completely unusable in Firefox. In light of the dramatic differences between browsers, I agreed that the current version is the best compromise available at this time. The last one-line version is just unusable in Firefox as there is no separation at all between the letters.   older &ne; wiser]] 16:51, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

1649

 * Please see 1649. I do not have the chance to read this discussion now. Please feel free to contact me for further details. Best regards Gangleri | [ Th] | T 12:43, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)

Stylesheet updated
Netoholic, the site-wide stylesheet has been updated to remove the gaps after external links using "plainlinks" -- would you be willing to experiment with some wrappable single-line TOCs now? Thanks! &mdash; Catherine\talk 20:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, this was only fixed in the Monobook skin, but that should be mostly good enough. It would still be a problem in some other skins.  There is still an open 714 on this issue. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Thanks Net -- sorry about the earlier misunderstandings. &mdash; Catherine\talk 16:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is this?
What does this template do? What is it for? And what does TOC stand for? LordAmeth 13:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In reverse order
 * TOC means "Table of contents"
 * It aids navigation of large categories (those with more than 200 members)
 * It inserts the rectangle saying "Contents...". Similar templates can be found at Template messages/Compact tables of contents.

redesign of {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}} and other templates from category:TOC templates
Dear friends; Please see I was on a wikibreak and am not familiar with the procedures here. If there are any questions please contact me on my meta user talk page. Best regards
 * 1) test:template:CategoryTOC
 * 2) ΩmegaWiki:template:CategoryTOC
 * 3) ΩmegaWiki:category talk:Articles needing attention

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 05:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)